Violence is becoming the new normal of Trump's America
Eric Lewis,
The Independent
Political violence has existed as long as politics. From both the left and the right, violence against political enemies has been a feature, not a bug, of radical political movements. Vladimir Lenin developed a "science of terror", in which violence was essential to overthrow the state. In Mein Kampf, Adolf Hitler declared: "The very first essential for success is a perpetually constant and regular employment of violence." And Benito Mussolini declared political violence a necessary tool both in his early days as a socialist and after his conversion to fascism. Radicals demonise their enemies and insist on responding with violence justified by any means.
So there is nothing new about the political violence that is becoming increasingly normalised in American life. While much is aimed at Democrats, the Republicans are not immune. The 2024 campaign saw two assassination attempts on Trump, and, in 2017, Steve Scalise, now the Republican Majority Leader of the House, was shot at a softball game.
The social media echo chamber, amplified by easy access to weapons, draws a variety of misfits, conspiracists and millenarian nuts out of the woodwork. But by any objective measure, political violence is primarily counter-revolutionary violence, and at the moment that is most obviously of a type egged on by MAGA rhetoric and the dehumanising and mocking of victims.
In Minnesota, a pro-Trump, anti-abortion gunman posing as a police officer murdered the former Speaker of the Minnesota House of Representatives, Melissa Hortman and her husband, Mark, in cold blood and put 17 bullets into Democratic State Senator John Hoffman and his wife, Yvette, who miraculously survived. This, in a state known for "Minnesota Nice".
The MAGA-sphere went into immediate overdrive to blame it on "the libs". Senator Mike Lee of Utah posted photos of the gunman with the caption, "This is what happens when Marxists don't get their way." In one brief sentence, Lee tells the lie that the killer was somehow a MAGA political enemy rather than a Trump supporter, and that the problem with violence is Marxists and Marxism.
The United States has many issues but adherence to or even knowledge of the principles of Karl Marx is not one of them. A second post by Lee says "Nightmare on Waltz [sic] street," a bizarre attempt at humour suggesting Minnesota Governor Tim Walz was to blame for the shootings.
So, with two people dead and two gravely injured, children left without parents and a quiet, progressive community terrorised, the response from the right is that it is the liberals' fault. There is no need for apology or even empathy: it is not a serious matter. Trump initially said there was no place for political violence, but then took the time to say he would not call Governor Walz to discuss the terrible violence because Walz was "a mess," grossly incompetent, and a "terrible governor." There is no shared empathy in tragedy for Trump. Political enmity is the cardinal value.
Yet two weeks ago, Democratic Senator Alex Padilla was manhandled and thrown to the ground by Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem's security goons for daring to try to speak out at a press conference in California. They knew that he was a US Senator, and he repeated it multiple times. In the face of video evidence, the Trump Administration simply lied. Trump was reported as saying that Padilla, the son of Mexican immigrants who worked menial jobs to send him to MIT, "looked like an illegal."
Just two of Padilla's 53 Republican colleagues in the Senate spoke out; the rest were silent. Additionally, in May, Mayor of Newark Ras Baraka was arrested and Congresswoman LaMonica McIver was charged with felony assault and obstructing ICE. Last week, the New York City Comptroller, Brad Lander, was roughed up and arrested by ICE for demanding to see a warrant. All are Democrats, and three are people of colour.
When then-Speaker Nancy Pelosi's home was invaded in 2022 in an attempt to kill her (she wasn't home), her octogenarian husband, Paul, had his skull fractured with a hammer. First, the MAGA-sphere lit up with the baseless rumour that this was a gay encounter gone wrong, and then they treated it as a joke.
Trump went full stand-up comic: "We'll stand up to crazy Nancy Pelosi, who ruined San Francisco — how's her husband doing, anybody know?" But he had more: "And she's against building a wall at our border, even though she has a wall around her house, which obviously didn't do a very good job."
And of course, during the insurrection of January 6 2021, when thousands of people were looking to hang Trump's former vice president, Mike Pence, and invaded Nancy Pelosi's office, this too was par for the course. For hours, Trump did nothing to stand them down and was accused of suggesting that Pence indeed deserved to be hanged. When back in power, he indiscriminately gave a blanket pardon to more than 1,000 of those who invaded the capital, including those involved in violence and injury to more than 1,000 police officers, and multiple deaths. These were, in Trump's view, the real patriots.
Political violence against enemies has been coupled with comic relief to convince people that they don't really need to worry about these victims or what is going on in the streets or federal buildings of America.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Gulf Today
7 hours ago
- Gulf Today
Trump betrayed the diplomatic effort, says Iranian FM
Tehran: Iranian Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi has dismissed US President Donald Trump's declaration that their countries would re-engage in nuclear negotiations in the coming week. 'If our interests require a return to negotiations, we will consider it. But at this time, no agreement or promise has been made, and no talks have taken place.' Araghchi made the point that they were negotiating when Israel launched its June 13th unprovoked attack on Iran. Trump followed up last weekend by striking three Iranian nuclear sites with bunker buster bombs with the intention of finishing off Iran's nuclear programme. Araghchi accused Trump of betraying the diplomatic effort to resolve differences. While Trump claimed the US had "obliterated" Iran's main nuclear sites, International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) chief Rafael Grossi said the sites had been seriously damaged but suggested that Iran should be able to enrich uranium "in a matter of months." According to CNN, the Trump administration could encourage Iran to resume talks by offering $20-30 billion to establish a civilian nuclear energy programme without Iranian enrichment of its own nuclear fuel. The finance, it is said, could be provided by the Gulf countries, naturally not the US. The administration would also ease sanctions and unfreeze Iranian assets in foreign banks. While such a speculative deal has been deliberately leaked and widely reported, it is unlikely to materialise. It looks like "pie in the sky," as the saying goes. Tehran is unlikely to reject a return to talks, but Iran is still assessing its military, political, and diplomatic losses from Israel's 12-day war and US strikes on its nuclear sites. Iran has to lay down its own conditions and decide when the atmosphere is propitious before re-engaging. Iran has laid down two red lines: low level uranium enrichment must continue on Iranian soil and Iran will not discuss its ballistic missile programme which Iran argues is essential for self-defence. Trump seeks to cross these red lines by eliminating both domestic enrichment and missiles. Trust has not characterised Iranian-US relations since Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini over-threw Washington's ally Shah Mohammed Reza Pahlavi in early 1979 and, radical "students" seized control of the US embassy in Tehran and held staff for 444 days. They were not freed until Ronald Regan had taken over the US presidency from Jimmy Carter. Unfortunately, this gesture did not clear the way for the restoration of relations due to US rejectionism. The blow of losing the Shah, compounded by the humiliation of the embassy occupation made the US, particularly Congress, testy and unforgiving and easily influenced by domestic and Israeli anti-Iran hawks. Iranian popular trust in the US was undermined during the decades-long the rule of the shah who developed Iran's economy and carried out modernising social reforms but ruled with an iron fist. His tool was his intelligence agency Savak which allied with the US Central Intelligence Agency and Israel's Mossad. The shah put Iran firmly in the Western camp during the Cold War with the Soviet Union and adopted pro-Israel policies. Iranian resentment continues over the 1953 US-British coup against popularly elected Prime Minister Mossadegh who nationalised the Anglo-Iranian oil company. Resentment intensified when in 1954, the shah reached a deal giving Western countries control of Iran's oil industry. He also allowed US companies to play a dominant role in trade and Iran's domestic markets. This was exploited by the Iranian opposition, especially Khomeini who mounted his "revolution" from exile in France. He returned to Tehran in early 1979 after the shah had fled to the US. After several years of turmoil, Khomeini installed the cleric-dominated model of governance A decade after the fall of Shah, Iran's President Hashemi Rafsanjani (1989-1997) tried and failed to reconcile with the US and the West. He was followed by Mohammed Khatami (1997-2005) who in 1999 launched his "Dialogue of Civilisations" which he hoped would achieve this end. One effort in this campaign was a Cyprus conference attended by US scholars, policy makers, influential Iranians, and foreign correspondents. While Khatami's call for dialogue failed to change Washington, one result of this conference was the creation of the website Gulf 2000 which continues to provide platform for information and comment on Iran, the Gulf and the region. Khatami was succeeded by erratic hardliner Mahmoud Ahmadinejad (2005-2013). His hostile attitude toward the US and the West gave a boost to the powerful anti-Iran lobby in Washington, which was heavily influenced by Israeli Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu who had tried for three decades to drag the US into a war with Iran. The landmark 2015 agreement limiting Iran's nuclear programme in exchange for lifting sanctions was negotiated during the presidency of reformist Hassan Rouhani (2013-2021). Iran carried out its commitments under the Obama administration deal and secured some relief from sanctions which had crippled its economy. At that time, IAEA chief Grossi said Iran's nuclear programme was "primitive." The deal restricted enrichment to 3.67 per cent for civilian power plants, reduced its stockpile, compelled Iran to export enriched uranium above the limit, and compelled Iran to use old model centrifuges for enrichment. Iran was subjected to the most stringent and invasive regime of monitoring and inspections ever imposed on any country. However, in 2018, Trump aborted the deal and proclaimed1,500 sanctions, disrupting the process of reconstituting US-Iran relations. Iran responded in 2019 by enriching uranium to 20 and 60 per cent, amassing a large stockpile, building advanced centrifuges, and curbing IAEA monitoring, Hardliners in the Iranian clerical establishment engineered the 2021 election of Ebrahim Raisi who reverted to an anti-US stance until he died in a helicopter crash in 2024. Iran again swung to the reformist faction by electing Masoud Pezeshkian as president who had pledged to clinch a new nuclear agreement. Having failed to restore relations with the US, which remains Iran's chief antagonist on the global scene, Tehran has cultivated ties within the region. This process was expanded by the 2023 restoration of Saudi Iranian relations and promised the stability Gulf countries require to pursue economic and social advancement. This has been jeopardised by Israel's war on Iran and US military and political intervention.
Gulf Today
7 hours ago
- Gulf Today
Term limits won't fix what's wrong with Congress
David M. Drucker, Tribune News Service Support for imposing term limits on the US Congress is gaining steam, with at least half a dozen state legislatures approving resolutions urging a cap on service in the House of Representatives and the Senate. It stands to reason. Congress' job approval ratings are perennially in the tank, and a fresh Quinnipiac University poll reveals more of the same. In the survey, Republicans, who control both chambers, received positive marks from just 32% of registered voters. Democrats fared even worse, garnering a meager 21% approval rating. Many Americans across the political spectrum believe term limits would invigorate Capitol Hill, forcing older lawmakers to make way for new faces, loosening the stranglehold of politics and donors on lawmaking and enabling policy outcomes more responsive to their priorities. They're wrong — especially on that last part. Rather than making members of the House and Senate more responsive to the voters, term limits would shift power from veteran, experienced lawmakers to unelected staffers, executive branch bureaucrats and K Street lobbyists, none of whom would be subject to term limits. Just ask longtime political operatives in California, who have watched firsthand the impact of term-limits on the state legislature. Early in my career, I was a statehouse reporter in California, covering a legislature that limited assembly members to three, two-year terms and senators to two, four-year terms. Reform was minimal; political jockeying to reach the next elected position was rampant; and the work product generally was mediocre because novice lawmakers who didn't know what they were doing quickly assumed committee chairmanships and political leadership. Rob Stutzman, a veteran Republican operative in Sacramento, describes it as a 'transfer of institutional power' from elected officials to unelected government professionals and lobbyists. The experience was failure enough that in 2012 Californians approved Proposition 28, a voter initiative that overhauled term-limits. To solve the myriad problems created by letting inexperienced lawmakers govern the state with America's largest population and biggest economy, voters agreed to extend the years of service allowed in either chamber of the legislature to a dozen years (six, two-year terms in the assembly and three, four-year terms in the senate). But there was a trade-off. To sell voters on increasing the number of assembly and senate terms politicians can serve, the total years they are permitted to serve in the legislature overall were reduced from 14 to 12. And that means many of the governing pitfalls Proposition 28 aimed to address have lingered. 'Senior committee staff consider themselves members since they feel they know more than these neophyte legislators,' said David Louden, a Republican operative who previously served as chief of staff to four members of the California legislature. These legislative aides 'end up driving the policy of the committee, as opposed to the legislator,' he added. But cautionary tales about the potential downsides of terms limits have failed to dissuade voters from their firm belief that limits on Congressional service are the antidote for what ails the House and Senate. Over 80% of Americans support Congressional term limits. That would require a constitutional amendment. As political writer John Fund reports for National Review, six legislatures — Indiana, Louisiana, North Dakota, South Carolina, South Dakota and Tennessee — have approved resolutions 'calling for an Article V convention to impose term limits on Congress,' with Arizona and Ohio poised to do the same. (A convention would only be triggered if 34 states passed such a resolution.) Meanwhile, there also is support for congressional term limits brewing in Congress. Freshman Senator Dave McCormick and fifth-term Representative Brian Fitzpatrick, both Republicans from Pennsylvania, have jointly proposed amending the Constitution to put a ceiling on congressional service. Their plan would limit senators to two, six-year terms and House members to six, two-year terms, so that no politician could spend more than a dozen years in either chamber. To encourage support for the measure, McCormick and Fitzpatrick would exclude members who were elected before the 2022 midterm elections. 'Our Founding Fathers never imagined that Congress would become an institution filled with career politicians who stay on well past retirement age,' McCormick said in a statement. The senator's point about politicians who stick around beyond the standard retirement age is particularly resonant in a political era with so many elderly political leaders — a development that has left many Democratic, Republican and independent voters hungry for new leadership. On this front, Stutzman pointed out that California's term-limits law has been effective. 'At a time when the US Senate is as old as it's ever been, term limits in California have certainly led to a younger legislature,' he said. 'There were certainly decades-long incumbents that were finally forced to move on once term limits took effect.' My opposition to congressional term-limits notwithstanding, I get the appeal. Roughly a dozen years before I took up political reporting, in the fall of 1990, I voted for Proposition 140, implementing term-limits on the California legislature. Get the career politicians out, I figured. Get imaginative industry professionals with real-world skills in. They would go to Sacramento and focus on good governance and solving problems, I thought, because constitutionally constrained tenures would free them from worrying about reelection. Then, in the winter of 2003, I started covering the statehouse and saw the consequences of my vote up close. It had only made things worse. I can only imagine what would happen in Washington, especially with presidents who take a rather expansive view of their executive powers.
Gulf Today
7 hours ago
- Gulf Today
Musk lashes out at Senate's take on ‘beautiful' megabill
Elon Musk has slammed the Senate version of President Donald Trump's "Big, Beautiful Bill" as support for the motion to proceed with the legislation in the upper chamber comes down to the wire. "The latest Senate draft bill will destroy millions of jobs in America and cause immense strategic harm to our country!" Musk wrote on X on Saturday afternoon. "Utterly insane and destructive. It gives handouts to industries of the past while severely damaging industries of the future." Senate Republicans dropped the final text of the sprawling 940-page bill late on Friday evening. Trump has said he wanted the Senate to pass the legislation — which would include sweeping spending cuts to pay for the tax cuts he signed into law in 2017, increased spending for the military, oil exploration, and immigration enforcement —before the July 4th weekend. Republicans, who have 53 seats, plan to pass the bill using the process of budget reconciliation. That would allow them to sidestep a filibuster from the Democrats as long as the legislation relates to the budget. For the past week, the Senate parliamentarian's office has issued advisories about which parts do not comply with the rules of reconciliation. The biggest sticking point was major changes to Medicaid. Specifically, the legislation would require that Medicaid recipients who are able-bodied and without dependent children would have to work or participate in community service or education for 80 hours a month. In addition, the legislation limits the amount of money states can tax health care providers like hospitals and nursing homes to raise money for Medicaid. But the American Hospital Association said this would devastate rural hospitals that rely on Medicaid dollars. The parliamentarian removed the provider tax provision, but the new version of the bill simply delays when the cap goes into effect. Before the text dropped, Sen. Thom Tillis of North Carolina, who hails from a state with a large number of rural hospitals and that expanded Medicaid under the Affordable Care Act in 2023, said he was a "no" on the motion to proceed because of Medicaid. "It will cause a lot of people to have to be moved off of Medicaid," he told The Independent on Friday evening. "Is just inescapable. The price tag's too high, and the transition protocol, even if you agree with the ultimate target." In addition, the legislation also rolls back some of the renewable energy tax credits implemented in the Inflation Reduction Act, the legislation former President Joe Biden signed that used the same budget reconciliation process. If the bill passes the Senate, it will return to the House of Representatives, which passed it last month. But plenty of conservatives have made objections to the Senate's changes. Trump lobbied senators on Saturday while playing golf with Senators Rand Paul of Kentucky and Lindsey Graham of South Carolina. Tillis, who's up for re-election in 2028, outlined his opposition to the bill again on Saturday, saying in a statement that "It would result in tens of billions of dollars in lost funding for North Carolina, including our hospitals and rural communities. This will force the state to make painful decisions like eliminating Medicaid coverage for hundreds of thousands in the expansion population, and even reducing critical services for those in the traditional Medicaid population." Senator Tim Sheehy of Montana wrote on X ahead of the vote on Saturday, "I have just concluded productive discussions with leadership. I will be leading an amendment to strip the sale of public lands from this bill. I will vote yes on the motion to proceed. We must quickly pass the Big Beautiful Bill to advance President Trump's agenda." While, President Donald Trump threatened Senate Republicans who defy him and his 'Big, Beautiful Bill' as the legislation cleared a key test vote in a dramatic night in the upper chamber of Congress. After negotiations dragged on for hours Saturday evening, the Senate voted 51 to 49 to open a debate on the legislation, moving one step closer to landing the bill on Trump's desk by his self-imposed Fourth of July deadline. The Independent
